Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    Well I guess this is over then. Good day and goodbye.
    We've had a delightful discussion. Au revoir
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    ... That's your definition of a joke...?
    Read what viddy said.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    It is not the same thing. As another said, I actually study A2 psychology and part of my course is learning dieting/food preferences through evolutionary.

    Humans actually started eating meat because 1) It contains nutrients that helped developed the brain back then and 2) Because there was a decline in forests which meant that humans had no other choice to hunt for different ways to get food so that meant hunting animals, if they didn't hunt for animals, the Human species would have died out.

    Slavery however, started because a racial group of people thought they were superior to another group of race and enslaved them for many years. There is no evolutionary process for man slaughtering an entire race for years and years.

    Comparing slavery to humans eating meat is disgusting and offensive. I can understand why you would want to promote eating plant based foods over meat but comparing it is slavery is just one way too far and it's disturbing.
    We're talking about right now, however. Slavery inflicted unnecessary suffering on other beings, because their interests were discounted because of the colour of their skin; the meat industry inflicts unnecessary suffering on other beings because their interests are discounted because they're not a member of the species Homo sapiens.

    This insight - that what is "natural" doesn't matter - and that it is suffering which matters, no matter who experiences it, was made by the great philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who wrote much of his work in the 1700s. As he wrote:

    The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?... The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    Most people, including myself, don't eat a huge great pile of meat or animal products every single day. Everything in moderation is fine. I eat McDonalds and pizza etc occasionally, and I'm a perfectly healthy weight. Excess eating leads to obesity, even overeating on a vegan diet. Every day it seems a different thing causes cancer. If we followed every single piece of information of this type we wouldn't be able to enjoy anything in life. On the other hand I imagine people who do try to follow these restrictions sometimes have strokes/ get cancer etc.A lot of it is genetic and down to other environmental factors. I, for one, don't want to live like that.
    And my textbooks are neither outdated nor wrong.
    You don't need to eat a huge pile, anything from 50-100 grams of red/processed meat a day is enough to significantly increase your risk. Yes, and on the other hand you wouldn't be able to enjoy life if you die from cancer or a heart attack.

    Nobody is forcing anyone to become vegan, it's just shown to be (in general) a much healthier lifestyle.

    Well I can find many well-reputed sources that disagree with your textbooks, there is really nothing natural about drinking a cow's milk for example. The idea of it's actually grotesque; most adults are repulsed by the idea of drinking a woman's breast milk, so why aren't they disgusted at the thought of drinking milk from a cow's udders (which are commonly infected, leading to pus cells in milk) meant for her calves?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    We're talking about right now, however. Slavery inflicted unnecessary suffering on other beings, because their interests were discounted because of the colour of their skin; the meat industry inflicts unnecessary suffering on other beings because their interests are discounted because they're not a member of the species Homo sapiens.

    This insight - that what is "natural" doesn't matter - and that it is suffering which matters, no matter who experiences it, was made by the great philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who wrote much of his work in the 1700s. As he wrote:
    What are you going on about? Slavery happened ages ago too and I am comparing it to evolutionary perspectives. If humans have ate meat through evolutionary, why do we have to stop eating meat now? If it is evolutionary, then it is part of our biology. Eating meat is basically innate and it is part of different cultures. If someone wants to eat meat, let them and not compare it to something offensive and if you dont see it as offensive then you are obviously insensitive.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    It is not the same thing. As another said, I actually study A2 psychology and part of my course is learning dieting/food preferences through evolutionary.

    Humans actually started eating meat because 1) It contains nutrients that helped developed the brain back then and 2) Because there was a decline in forests which meant that humans had no other choice to hunt for different ways to get food so that meant hunting animals, if they didn't hunt for animals, the Human species would have died out.

    Slavery however, started because a racial group of people thought they were superior to another group of race and enslaved them for many years. There is no evolutionary process for man slaughtering an entire race for years and years.

    Comparing slavery to humans eating meat is disgusting and offensive. I can understand why you would want to promote eating plant based foods over meat but comparing it is slavery is just one way too far and it's disturbing.
    You've failed to understand the point being made.

    1) Appeals to nature/tradition to determine the morality of practices is inherently fallacious; rape, murder, cannibalism are widely prevalent in the animal kingdom. They're all "natural" in that sense, but whether or not they're moral is a separate question entirely.

    2) The origin of practices is wholly irrelevant to the morality thereof. This is known as the genetic fallacy.

    3) In most ethical theories, it is the suffering/well-being of conscious beings that's considered to be the key; the comparison between racism and speciesism involves pointing out the infliction of unnecessary suffering on discriminatory grounds. To deny the validity of the comparison because it's "offensive" is again, a fallacious appeal to emotion.

    P.S. I'm a meat-eater
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    What are you going on about? Slavery happened ages ago too and I am comparing it to evolutionary perspectives. If humans have ate meat through evolutionary, why do we have to stop eating meat now? If it is evolutionary, then it is part of our biology. Eating meat is basically innate and it is part of different cultures. If someone wants to eat meat, let them and not compare it to something offensive and if you dont see it as offensive then you are obviously insensitive.
    Evolution does not matter - it can't tell us what is right and what is wrong. Before, we needed meat to survive. We can now obtain all of the nutrients we need on a vegan diet. As a result, the suffering that we inflict on nonhuman animals today is unnecessary, just as suffering inflicted on humans during slavery was unnecessary.

    If someone wanted to keep human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans in the conditions in which we keep nonhuman animals, should we let them (these groups of humans are demonstrably less intelligent than the animals we rear for meat, and intelligence apparently matters to some people when it comes to how we treat other beings)?

    I'm aware that it's offensive to some people, but I'm offended by the reasoning behind why people take offence at it. It depends on the notion that nonhuman animals are 'lesser' - that their suffering matters less - and that therefore the comparison to them is derogatory. Whether or not I'm offended is irrelevant, though: let's focus on the actual validity, or not, of the comparison.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    You've failed to understand the point being made.

    1) Appeals to nature/tradition to determine the morality of practices is inherently fallacious; rape, murder, cannibalism are widely prevalent in the animal kingdom. They're all "natural" in that sense, but whether or not they're moral is a separate question entirely.

    2) The origin of practices is wholly irrelevant to the morality thereof. This is known as the genetic fallacy.

    3) In most ethical theories, it is the suffering/well-being of conscious beings that's considered to be the key; the comparison between racism and speciesism involves pointing out the infliction of unnecessary suffering on discriminatory grounds. To deny the validity of the comparison because it's "offensive" is again, a fallacious appeal to emotion.
    Are you now comparing rape, murder to eating meating? Sigh, another *****y argument another annoying vegan has made.

    Eating meat was actually very beneficial to humans back in evolutionary times. It helped their brains develop better, helped them run faster, and if humans didn't eat meat we wouldn't have even had these traits, because me are a product of our ancestors. Tell me how raping and murdering someone benefitted them? It is a nonsensical argument. Your argument was extremely ridiculous. Think through it again.

    So what about animals that eat and kill other animals then? It seen as natural. Honestly salvery and animal killing is not comparable

    Meat eater or not, i don't care... you said some pretty ignorant stuff.
    I cant believe you are comparaing meat eating to rape and murder. WTF, some of you guys have messed up mentalities.
    And why are you eating meat if you have so many reaskns to be downright against it?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Evolution does not matter - it can't tell us what is right and what is wrong. Before, we needed meat to survive. We can now obtain all of the nutrients we need on a vegan diet. As a result, the suffering that we inflict on nonhuman animals today is unnecessary, just as suffering inflicted on humans during slavery was unnecessary.

    If someone wanted to keep human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans in the conditions in which we keep nonhuman animals, should we let them (these groups of humans are demonstrably less intelligent than the animals we rear for meat, and intelligence apparently matters to some people when it comes to how we treat other beings)?

    I'm aware that it's offensive to some people, but I'm offended by the reasoning behind why people take offence at it. It depends on the notion that nonhuman animals are 'lesser' - that their suffering matters less - and that therefore the comparison to them is derogatory. Whether or not I'm offended is irrelevant, though: let's focus on the actual validity, or not, of the comparison.
    But a vegan diet isn't for everyone. People on a low income diet would not afford a vegan diet. My psychology teacher actually advised my (soon to become) vegan friend not to be vegan because one of her friends suffered intensely because of the vegan diet. She went to the hospital and said it was because she didnt get all the nutrients from food. So what have you got to say about that?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    It is not the same thing. As another said, I actually study A2 psychology and part of my course is learning dieting/food preferences through evolutionary.

    Humans actually started eating meat because 1) It contains nutrients that helped developed the brain back then and 2) Because there was a decline in forests which meant that humans had no other choice to hunt for different ways to get food so that meant hunting animals, if they didn't hunt for animals, the Human species would have died out.

    Slavery however, started because a racial group of people thought they were superior to another group of race and enslaved them for many years. There is no evolutionary process for man slaughtering an entire race for years and years.

    Comparing slavery to humans eating meat is disgusting and offensive. I can understand why you would want to promote eating plant based foods over meat but comparing it is slavery is just one way too far and it's disturbing.
    Can yourself and EVERYONE WATCH THIS NOW please: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H73zgvD5x48 whether people agree or 'find it disturbing' or not, what is happening in the animal industry is a holocaust. Look up the definition for all you weak ass offended people - it is UNJUST and CRUEL - replace these beings with humans or domestic household animals and you would ALL be calling it these correct terms. The true 'disturbing' thing going on here is what you're all blinding yourselves to.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    Are you now comparing rape, murder to eating meating? Sigh, another *****y argument another annoying vegan has made.
    Ah yes, those pesky little vegans with their annoying morals and logic(!) :rolleyes:

    Eating meat was actually very beneficial to humans back in evolutionary times. It helped their brains develop better, helped them run faster, and if humans didn't eat meat we wouldn't have even had these traits
    All irrelevant to the morality of consuming meat today when a) it's not necessary for healthy-living, b) it harms the planet.

    because me are a product of our ancestors. Tell me how raping and murdering someone benefitted them?
    Propagation of genes via rape along with the elimination of competition via murder leads to evolutionary success.

    It is a nonsensical argument. Your argument was extremely ridiculous. Think through it again.
    I can assure you, I've thought about it.

    So what about animals that eat and kill other animals then? It seen as natural. Honestly salvery and animal killing is not comparable.
    ...but we've just established the morality of some action X is not dependent on its prevalence in the animal kingdom
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    But a vegan diet isn't for everyone. People on a low income diet would not afford a vegan diet. My psychology teacher actually advised my (soon to become) vegan friend not to be vegan because one of her friends suffered intensely because of the vegan diet. She went to the hospital and said it was because she didnt get all the nutrients from food. So what have you got to say about that?
    1. Starches, pulses and vegetables are the cheapest food to buy.

    2. Millions of people are thriving on a vegan diet. That one anecdote doesn't mean anything, when that they could have easily not researched properly.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H73zgvD5x48 Watch this if you're all so open-minded fgs
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    But a vegan diet isn't for everyone. People on a low income diet would not afford a vegan diet. My psychology teacher actually advised my (soon to become) vegan friend not to be vegan because one of her friends suffered intensely because of the vegan diet. She went to the hospital and said it was because she didnt get all the nutrients from food. So what have you got to say about that?
    My household income is £14,000 a year (around about the poverty line), and I can afford a vegan diet.

    Your teacher's anecdote is just that, an anecdote. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but poor planning on any diet will lead to bad outcomes. I'm here, talking to you, and I'm a vegan. My nutrient levels are right where they should be.

    Even on a low income, one can be just as healthy, if not healthier, on a vegan diet. That's the important part.

    And, I'm not saying it's an all-or-nothing thing: a lacto-vegetarian diet (cutting out meat and eggs but not dairy), for instance, is actually cheaper than an omnivorous diet, and also cuts out most of the suffering too. It's a spectrum, not "vegan or nothing".

    And, if you don't believe me, here's what the American Dietetic Association has to say:

    appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MotorboatMyGoat)
    1. Starches, pulses and vegetables are the cheapest food to buy.

    2. Millions of people are thriving on a vegan diet. That one anecdote doesn't mean anything, when that they could have easily not researched properly.
    Not everyone is fine with eating just vegetables. I like vegetables but I know some people that don't, it would be unfair to force someone to eat it, even if they are replused by it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Ah yes, those pesky little vegans with their annoying morals and logic(!) :rolleyes:



    All irrelevant to the morality of consuming meat today when a) it's not necessary for healthy-living, b) it harms the planet.



    Propagation of genes via rape along with the elimination of competition via murder leads to evolutionary success.



    I can assure you, I've thought about it.



    ...but we've just established the morality of some action X is not dependent on its prevalence in the animal kingdom
    Why are you eating meat if you think it's as bad as raping and killing someone?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    Not everyone is fine with eating just vegetables. I like vegetables but I know some people that don't, it would be unfair to force someone to eat it, even if they are replused by it.
    Fair enough, people don't like vegetables, (however you must eat some vegetables to be healthy) but there are many other foods you can eat. Linda McCartney and quorn taste great and are cheaper than meat.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    My household income is £14,000 a year (around about the poverty line), and I can afford a vegan diet.

    Your teacher's anecdote is just that, an anecdote. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but poor planning on any diet will lead to bad outcomes. I'm here, talking to you, and I'm a vegan. My nutrient levels are right where they should be.

    Even on a low income, one can be just as healthy, if not healthier, on a vegan diet. That's the important part.

    And, I'm not saying it's an all-or-nothing thing: a lacto-vegetarian diet (cutting out meat and eggs but not dairy), for instance, is actually cheaper than an omnivorous diet, and also cuts out most of the suffering too. It's a spectrum, not "vegan or nothing".

    And, if you don't believe me, here's what the American Dietetic Association has to say:
    But has a whole healthier foods are more expensive. Maybe people want to put their money on other focuses rather than food...

    I don'tthink the vegan diet is for everyone. Why can't you vegans just leave prople to eat whatever they want? Stop shoving your diet down people's throat.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    Why are you eating meat if you think it's as bad as raping and killing someone?
    Because I don't claim to be morally consistent. It probably has to do with me not seeing the suffering and deaths of the animals I eat, but that's a psychological issue unrelated to morality. Unlike some meat-eaters, I acknowledge the arguments made by vegans and vegetarians instead of getting defensive about it.

    If a murderer argued murder is wrong, he/she would be a hypocrite, sure. But that doesn't mean "murder is wrong" is therefore an incorrect statement. Don't commit ad-hominems.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    But has a whole healthier foods are more expensive. Maybe people want to put their money on other focuses rather than food...

    I don'tthink the vegan diet is for everyone. Why can't you vegans just leave prople to eat whatever they want? Stop shoving your diet down people's throat.
    Why should we? When you support the industry that shoves a knife down animals throats?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.